VoteYesForLife.com has the testimony of Julie Schriner who, like Tiffany Campbell in the pro-abortion ad, had a twin pregnancy with Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS).
The procedure used on her children managed to save both twins.
The reality of Initiated Measure 11 is that it is intended to save life, not end it. It allows for medical procedures that intend to save human life; it only prohibits elective abortions that intend to end human life.
Don't let the pro-abortionists fool you into doing what they want: keeping abortion legal to use as retroactive birth control.
Featured Article
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Both Twins Survive Twin-Twin Transfusion Pregnancy Treatment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Can you be sure that both twins will survive 100% of the time? I don't think you can.
Can you find a requirement in Initiated Measure 11 that stipulates the medical care must work 100% of the time? I don't think you can.
You're really desperate to justify the killing of unborn children for convenience, aren't you?
See sometimes we can act friendly to each other... and then there are the times you just a jerk to me (and I admit to sometimes being a jerk to you, too).
I'm not looking for ways to justify abortion. That's idiotic. You're just looking for reasons to label everyone on my side "murderers" or whatever hateful term you can come up with this time.
I understand that you believe abortion is always unnecessary. That's cool for you. I currently believe that there are many situations where abortion is sadly a necessary evil. Until we get to a point where I no longer believe there are situations that make abortion the best option, I will continue to oppose abortion bans.
I'm sorry, Bob. That's just how it is right now.
Outside an extremely rare case where it may be necessary to save the life of the mother or a very serious health threat, there is simply no legitimate reason to kill an unborn child.
And in opposing Initiated Measure 11--which has more exceptions that any serious pro-life person likes--your radical pro-abortion stance stands out like a sore thumb.
If even exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother and the life of the mother aren't good enough, then you're pretty much left back at abortion as birth control. And that's reprehensible and pathetic to defend abortion on that basis.
That's just how it is.
Sorry if you expect sugar coating. I don't provide that service.
The problem with that is that my side isn't as stupid as your side thinks we are. You can't just slap up the words "exceptions for rape, incest, health and life" and except us to buy that. You guys tried that back in 2006 when the polls said most South Dakotans would prefer those exceptions.
But we've read through your "exceptions" bill and still seen it lacking. You may see them as exceptions but we still see too much red tape and we worry that it's still too restrictive to women with unwanted pregnancies in those cases.
I was hoping that both our sides would find some common ground after the 2006 election, but I'm just not seeing that.
You apparently think we're pretty stupid.
That "red tape" is necessary to ensure the exceptions are used for their intended purposes--not as loopholes to continue abortion on demand.
Which is exactly what would happen without those requirements.
Which is exactly why pro-abortion folks still won't support a ban with exceptions--anything less than abortion on demand is unacceptable.
When it comes to saving lives, there is no "middle ground." Dead is dead.
Post a Comment